Stop doing that; we’ll define “that” later
Here we go again. We’re not allowed to have opinions because opinions interfere with communninny coheesion. The only way to have communninny coheesion is for everyone to agree on everything all the time.
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has said the Government is “actively considering” its approach to islamophobia in devising a full definition following far-right riots.
Ms Rayner, also the Communities Secretary, criticised the previous government for “stoking division” as she pledged to address issues of community cohesion.
I hate to tell her but Rayner is stoking division by trying to tell people what they’re allowed to say and think and dislike.
In 2019, the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on British Muslims devised a definition of islamophobia as “rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
Hooboy, that’s seriously stupid. One, Muslim is not a race; two, religions have to be open to criticism and dispute and flat rejection, because they have massive ambitions to tell us what we’re allowed to do and say and think. It’s not racism to reject Islam.
Reform UK MP Lee Anderson (Ashfield) asked what the Government’s definition of islamophobia is.
Ms Rayner replied: “A new definition must be given careful consideration so that it comprehensively reflects multiple perspectives and considers potential implications for different communities. And we’re actively considering our approach to Islamophobia, including definitions, and we’ll provide further updates on this in due course.”
Erm, shouldn’t they have done that before rather than after calling for new rules against “Islamophobia”? If they don’t know what it is, what are they even talking about?
Well, if islamophobia is, by definition, “rooted in racism and is a type of racism” that means reasoned criticism of the tenets of Islam and the practices of Muslims is equally, by definition, not Islamophobia. Right? Right?
Careful now, careful. You could provoke some devoted follower of The Prophet (PBUH) to declare you an Infidel, and subject you to a 9/11 all of his own making. If in the process of defending the honour of The Prophet (PBUH again) he should find martyrdom as well, he will fly straight up to Paradise, or maybe ride that flying horse Whatsitsname, and there receive his reward of 72 lovely virgins and spend the rest of eternity in their company and with them satisfying his every desire in every possible way.
Worse, you could provoke some imam from some mosque or other to fatwah you, or maybe even make you the central focus of a jihad.
It’s ridiculous. Rioting is already illegal. The state of mind of the rioter should only come into play at sentencing – insofar as it will affect the likelihood of re-offending. The courts are supposed to take this into account all the time, such as the risk of further race-motivated attacks should the rioter not be required to attend some kind of rehabilitation.
The state of mind of anyone who hasn’t committed any offence is (or, rather, should be) of no interest to the legal system, as it has no bearing in maintaining law and order. The British public have had plenty of warning that there are authoritarian impulses in many members of the current government, but don’t seem to realise how determined they are to turn everyone into mindless drones.